From: 7rans <transfire@...>
Date: 2006-07-25T23:38:11+09:00
Subject: Re: I'll have the duck!


dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Daniel DeLorme wrote:
>
> > dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

> The problem is that "duck typing" is already "taken" :-)
>
> >> of the fact that duck typing isn't something one can implement in
> >> code, and that therefore the point of this code is being obscured
> >> rather than revealed by the naming.
> >
> > That sounds very silly, like saying that OOP or functional programming
> > can't be implemented in code.
>
> I do wish we could keep "silly" and "delusional" and so on out of it.
> Anyway -- my point is that duck typing is not a library-level language
> facility that you or I can write and 'require' and thus add to Ruby.
> Even if there's a module called DuckTyping, people who ignore that
> module are still 100% as capable of using a duck-typing approach as
> people who use the module.  The existence of the module is orthogonal
> to both the duck-typing friendliness of the language, and the
> duck-typing programming style of the people using the language.
>
> It's a bit like writing a module called ObjectOrientation.  The module
> might do something wonderful, but it doesn't add object orientation to
> Ruby :-)  (I think I stole that example from Chad Fowler, from a
> discussion of something else a couple of years ago.)
>
> So my suggestion was, and is, to name your module something else, and
> then trust duck-typing devotees (and others) to examine it and decide
> whether it helps them out.

Er... Did someone put you in charge of the duck type club?  I am a
duck-typing "devotee". But I am not a dogmatic lexicon beater. My use
of the term "duck" and "type" has a very clear sematic value to the
conversaion percisely because of the term Dave has "taken" --taken to
have a _useful_ meaning. But you want to insist that my use of the term
isn't "proper" and continue to waste our time on matters of "rosey"
triviality. Then let me oblige you in your own pursuit...

The term ducking typing, according to your own convictions can be
nothing of the sort. For it is completely contradictory to call
something a "type" when by defintion it excludes anything type
whatsoever. It would be more appropritate call it duck anti-typing, if
anything. Furthermore a duck is featuerd animal that tends to float
around in ponds all day and fly south for the wnter. I fail to see any
such creatures in your concept.

You see, the words "duck" and "type" were "taken" before you or Dave
hit the scene  So I advise you to find another term. :-)

T.